Judicial data via CourtListener (Free Law Project). Social links via Wikidata.
Decision levers
AI-measured from their own opinions — each lever cites its cases
PurposivismTextualism
In [1] Wesley resolves the meaning of 'lay member' in Public Health Law §230 by reference to the statutory text and structure rather than legislative purpose. MATTER OF ORENS v. Novello ↗
Deference to government powerSkepticism of government power
In [0] Wesley upholds the vehicle search and seizure on the basis of observed furtive movements and evasion, applying settled Fourth Amendment standards without narrowing police authority. People v. Mundo ↗
This case concerns a petition for rehearing en banc after a Second Circuit panel denied habeas relief to Richard Rosario, who challenged his state criminal conviction on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court decided to deny rehearing en banc, leaving the panel decision in place. The core reasoning is that New York's standard for ineffective assistance of counsel is more protective of defendants than the federal Strickland standard, any error that is prejudicial under the federal test would necessarily implicate the state standard as well, and the state court in this case properly assessed the specific potential prejudice from counsel's omission of additional alibi witnesses rather than minimizing it through an overall evaluation of counsel's performance.
The case involved a defendant who was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police in New York City after an illegal right turn on red; the car evaded officers multiple times, and the defendant made furtive movements as if hiding something. Officers removed the occupants, patted them down, and then searched the backseat area, discovering access to the trunk that led to finding nearly a kilogram of cocaine. The trial court denied suppression of the evidence, the defendant was convicted of drug possession charges, and the Appellate Division affirmed with modifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the limited search was justified under the state constitution because the combination of evasive driving and the defendant's movements created a reasonable basis to conclude that a weapon in the vehicle posed an actual and specific danger to officer safety, consistent with precedents like People v. Torres and People v. Carvey. The court distinguished this from routine post-stop searches by requiring specific facts indicating imminent risk rather than hypothetical threats.
The case concerned whether hearing committees convened by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct under Public Health Law § 230 could include a physician's assistant as the required "lay member," or whether that role had to be filled by someone outside any profession subject to the Board's disciplinary authority. Two physicians facing license revocation proceedings objected to committees composed of two physicians and one physician's assistant; the Appellate Division agreed with them and annulled the determinations. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute's plain language defines a lay member simply as a person who is not a licensed physician. The Court reasoned that the Legislature used the term "lay member" without further restriction, that physician's assistants are not physicians, and that historical amendments to the statute supported this reading rather than a narrower exclusion of all licensed health professionals.
In this case, defendant Darrel Harris was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree murder and other charges after he robbed and fatally shot three people at a Brooklyn social club in 1996, while seriously wounding a fourth. Following a jury trial and sentencing hearing, he received a death sentence under New York's recently restored capital punishment statute. On direct appeal, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt with no reversible trial errors, but vacated the death sentence. The court held that the sentence was unconstitutional under its prior ruling in Matter of Hynes v Tomei due to flaws in the statutory scheme governing plea bargaining and sentencing in capital cases.
This case involved five proposed class actions filed by New York consumers against tobacco companies and related entities, alleging that the defendants used deceptive practices to conceal nicotine's addictive properties, controlled nicotine levels to maintain addiction, and suppressed related research, thereby fraudulently inducing purchases of cigarettes; plaintiffs sought only reimbursement of purchase costs. The trial court certified modified classes after finding valid causes of action under common-law fraud and state consumer protection statutes that were not preempted by federal law. The Appellate Division decertified the classes, held that claims of fraudulent concealment and failure to warn were preempted by the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, and dismissed the remaining affirmative misrepresentation claims for lack of pleading specificity. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in determining that the statutory criteria for class certification under CPLR 901(a) were not satisfied due to the predominance of individual issues, that preemption applied to certain claims, and that the fraud allegations lacked the required particularity, resulting in dismissal of all claims including derivative conspiracy and aiding-and-abetting theories.
This case involved a commercial landlord-tenant dispute in which a law firm tenant withheld rent payments citing partial eviction from elevator problems, leading the landlord to draw down a required $1 million letter of credit for security. The tenant obtained a Yellowstone injunction to avoid eviction, with conditions requiring rent arrears and ongoing payments to be held in escrow, but the underlying obligation to pay rent and interest under the lease remained disputed through years of litigation. After the tenant's partial eviction claims were dismissed, the landlord sought to vacate the injunction and recover both the escrowed funds and contractual interest on late payments. The Court of Appeals held that the Yellowstone injunction preserved the status quo regarding eviction but did not alter or supersede the lease's interest provisions, so the landlord was entitled to interest on the arrears as specified in the contract. The court reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the trial court's order awarding the interest.
propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory
Affiliations
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — appointed by George W. Bush
